« 上一頁繼續 »
our habits. Everyone feels that ; but we know a few enthusiasts cannot commence the business unless everyone else does. 866. Obviously ?–And in face of that, we think some such scheme as Mr. Willett's perhaps would be good for the health of the people, and good for their pockets too. We object to Mr. Willett's method, because we all are sure that it will introduce a great deal of confusion. In the main I quite endorse Sir David Gill’s opinion, that it would lead to terrible confusion; and it was for this reason that six months ago, when Mr. Willett's proposal was first brought before us, that I then proposed the adoption of Mid-European time as an alternative; and I strongly recommended Mr. Willett, since then, to have his Bill amended for that purpose. I have made a note (if you allow me to read it; it is not very long) as to our reasons for recommending the adoption of Mid-European time. 867. If it is not very long, read it 2–It is not very long. I noticed, in the course of the evidence given this morning, there seemed to be some little misunderstanding. Every now and then there appeared to be a suggestion that the Bill could bring more daylight into the world—of course that cannot be. We have six months of daylight and six months of darkness, take the year round; and there is another reference made, which is confusing, to “Greenwich mean time as varied, &c.” You cannot alter Greenwich time— Greenwich mean time is unalterable, unless you move Greenwich. Then there was a suggestion that the adoption of Mid-European time would be doing away with Greenwich time as a reference. That is quite a mistake. Berlin time is not now used. Berlin time has been suppressed, and the whole of Mid-Europe has adopted Greenwich time, but they alter it exactly one hour, and in the East of Europe they adopt Greenwich time, but alter it two hours. The United States long ago adopted Greenwich time with a difference of successive hours. Even Japan has adopted Greenwich time as the basis. I have said here: “During recent years nearly all civilised nations have suppressed their own local times, and, recognising the inconvenience of differing from us, and from each other, by odd fractions of an hour, have taken Greenwich mean time as their base, and have adopted new standards, either agreeing with Greenwich, or differing from it by one or more exact hours, according to their mean longitudes. The consequence is that the official clocks in all these countries have their minute and second hands in agreement with ours, and only differ by one hour, or, by an exact number of hours. These differences of exact hours are so clear that they lead to no mistakes, and the advantages of having the minute hands of practically all the clocks in the world in agreement has so simplified railway and telegraphic intercommunication that it would be downright wrong for us in this country of origin of Standard Time to divide the hour into fractions, and destroy the unanimity that so many nations have gone out of their way to bring about. Greenwich is the ‘time centre of the world. My proposition is to adopt Mid-European time as the civil standard here. Advantages: agreement of
clock time with practically all European nations. Mid-European time would become European time. France would follow. I recommended this to Mr. Willett, but he would none of it. I think my way is the only right way to make the change.” And I think it would be so easy, indeed to my mind it is the only practical way of altering the clock; shift it in agreement with the present MidEuropean time. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Servia, Bosnia, they all use Greenwich time with the one hour in advance; Holland, Belgium and Spain use our time just as it stands.
868. Holland and Belgium ?—Yes, Holland and Belgium and Spain; they all use Greenwich time. 869. What part of Europe uses the two hours extra 2–European Turkey, and two of the Balkan States I think, Bulgaria and Roumania; then Australia uses Greenwich time. 870. Russia ?–Russia, I think, still uses Russian time; I am not quite sure, as there are changes constantly going on. When a State changes its official time to bring it into line with our Greenwich time, the people generally are rather slow in adapting their local church clocks to the new state of things, but eventually they come round. 871. You have heard Sir David Gill's objection to any alteration of the clock 2–Yes, and it is a common-sense objection. 872. Any alteration ?–Yes, it is a commonsense objection, but I do so admire the principle of encouraging people to get up early, and of encouraging myself to get up better, that I think Mr. Willett's change would be good if it were distinctly the one hour. 873. Sir David Gill is irrevocably opposed to any tampering (as he calls it) with the clocks of the country?—Yes. 874. What have you to say to that ?—I do not see any great difficulty if we simply alter them a complete hour. 875. You do not see any practical difficulty ? —No, one suggestion is to make the change at 2 o'clock on one of the Sundays. I do not know how you are going to get over that; who is going to alter the station clocks 2 876. It has been suggested that it might be done electrically—electrical synchronisation ?— Yes, that might come in time, but at the present time not one clock in a hundred is so arranged. It means a big expense, and it is unnecessary, because a good clock does not want synchronising. Who would dream of synchronising “Big Ben.” 877. So your view is that any change must be in the direction of a permanent change of one hour over Greenwich time and no other ?—Well, I certainly should strongly object to any subdivision of the hour. As to the permanent change, my own view is that the one hour's advance of the clock might be made, not only from the encouragement of early rising in the summer months, but because we should be setting the clocks of all Europe to agree with one another. It would add to international inter-communication, and if it is desirable to bring it back in the winter time, then alter it by that one hour at the end of 19 May, 1908.]
of September. I think the 31st March would not be too early to advance the clock, and the 30th September not too late to take it back. 878. I want to ask you, as a choice of methods, which you would rather have, a permanent alteration of one hour, or a six-monthly alteration ? —A permanent alteration, decidedly. 879. You have no doubt in your own mind about that ?–Not at all. The only inconvenience is the winter mornings being rather dark. Those things would put themselves right, I think. 880. It will give people the opportunity of getting up a little earlier, even in the winter, if they chose so to do?—Yes it would, and it is so much easier to get up a little later than it is to get up a little earlier. 881. Even if this scheme of Mr. Willett's would bear upon you, your corporation would defend such a change 2–It was suggested entirely by Mr. Willett's proposal. It would lead to the encouragement of earlier rising in the summer months. There is no doubt about that.
882. I think it is quite plain that you would strongly object to changes of the clock 2–I strongly object to changes of the clock except by complete hours. 883. Therefore you have no word whatever to say in favour of the particular proposal of the Bill ?—I think it is a very stupid suggestion. 884. You put that “pat” and as plain as can be. If you were going to have an alteration twice a year, if you were simply going to have an earlier time in the summer, you are in favour of one hour twice a year, nothing more or less 2 —Yes. 885. What you would really prefer is that we should adopt Mid-European time 2–Yes, I think that is the most sensible arrangement. 886. And you put forward two reasons for doing it : firstly, that it makes for earlier rising, and secondly, that it makes common time practical all over Europe?—Yes, that appeals to me most. 887. That is what I want to ask you. Which is the reason you think the most important of these two ?—The international adoption of common time. 888. And that, of course, there is only one method of doing, that is by adopting Mid-European time ! —Yes, that fits in all round, and is already in use in so many places where they have recognised the value and advantage of our Greenwich mean time as a basis. 889. I think I may say you are the only witness —the only person we have had so far—who has suggested that an alteration should take place for the sake of placing ourselves in accord with the rest of Europe 2–Yes, that appeals to me. 890. I am not saying whether I agree with you or not, but the object of the promoters of this bill is—and the object of every witness who has given evidence in favour of it—to secure early rising ?–No doubt that is so. 891. That is so, and if you were going to secure early rising by an alteration of an hour—and that were your only object—if you put out of your mind altogether the wish to get common time
with all the rest of Europe, it would surely be a much simpler and much more reasonable thing to simply pass an Act of Parliament which said that wherever in any statute an hour is mentioned, there should be substituted for it one hour earlier, that is to say, where you find the hour of eight mentioned in a statute you should read it as seven ?—I am afraid that would not lead to much. 892. It would have the same effect, so far as it would promote early rising by statute, as altering the hours of the clock, would it not ? —Yes, I suppose it would. 893. As far as statute can do anything, if you have any wish to get common time at all, it is obviously much more reasonable to call upon people to get up an hour earlier, knowing they are getting up an hour earlier, than to cheat them into getting up an hour earlier by saving it is 12 o'clock when it is 11 o’clock 2–You see the times we adopt are all arbitrary, so I do not think so much of that. I know that Greenwich is our reference, but we go to all parts of the country and are adopting times which do not agree with the local meridians, and one reason for objecting to more than the hour change that I do, is that it is a Bill that has only studied the convenience of London and the big towns. The agricultural districts, of course, adapt themselves to sunrise and sunset, and it does not affect them at all. The big towns have got into bad habits—especially in this part of the world—and in making this proposition, Mr. Willett only appears to have kept in mind London. Cornwall is already 20 minutes later than we are. They have that 20 minutes already, but they use Greenwich time as we do. Then it is proposed that this bill should extend to Ireland. If you were to alter it 80 minutes and carry forward the 25' minutes, by which Ireland already differs, you are going to advance their clocks nearly two hours. In the west of Ireland they are 40 minutes later than we are, and it would not be dark in June until nearly midnight. It is too big a change for Ireland. It does not take into account what is happening there, it is not taking into account what is happening in the west of our Kingdom. In the north also, in Scotland, where they have so much longer days in summer, and correspondingly short ones in winter, they have already daylight till nearly
, 10 o’clock. Some of my friends in Scotland
who are interested say: “We would welcome your hour but we do not want Mr. Willett's 20 minutes.” 894. Can you tell me off-hand what is the difference in time between Greenwich and Glasgow 2—For the moment I do not remember. It is about 16 or 17 minutes. 895. And Edinburgh is a good deal more??– Edinburgh is 12 minutes, 44 seconds slow. Edinburgh is 12 minutes 44 seconds, and of course *lasgow is a little further—two or three minutes further.
896. You have said that the suggestion only takes into consideration London. Of course you are aware that there are five millions of people 19 May, 1908.]
in London ?–Yes. 897. London
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL. 47
S97. London is as big as Ireland, so far as population goes 2–Yes.
Chairman. 897A. In greater London it would be six millions.
898. I think you will agree that London is the biggest sinner in sitting up late 2–Yes, I think it is. 899. And in not getting up early ?—Yes, I think it is. 900. Therefore if you want to get the people out of their bad habits, it would be an improvement ?–It would indeed. 901. If it was only in limiting the public houses to 11 o’clock, or say 10 o’clock, instead of 12.30, it would be 2–That could be done without, but in studying the requirements of the five or six millions of people in London, I think it would be well if we studied the other 40 millions at the same time, and if we gave London 75 per cent. of Mr. Willett's requirements, and allowed the 25 per cent, discount to meet the differences in other portions of the Kingdom, we would be going a good step and acting on lines which are uite clear and distinct. 902. Whilst at the same time we are doing all we can for the agriculturists, still they do not suffer the disadvantages of the operatives in the factories of having to work in close objectionable atmosphere, where they do not get good air, or only at rare intervals. Then to add to that there is the lighting up at night and working for an hour or two hours, as we used to do, by gaslight. Of course electric light has done something to ameliorate that. Those are matters that the operative wants to avoid for the preservation of his eyes and his health ?—Does not his employer naturally, for his own sake and for economy’s sake, use as much daylight as possible : 903. No, he does not ?—Then it would be in his power to alter his plans. 904. It would be in his power; but usually, if you can get the public to do something of a general character, you can get individuals to fall in with it, and the idea is, of course, to lift by the Bill, as it were, the time of commencing work, to make it earlier which would necessitate people getting up earlier; and you think that from your point of view it would be a mistake to alter the clocks 2–It would be hopeless. If it is tried for five or six months everyone will be so wild with it that you will never hear any more about daylight schemes. 905. I always like to give everything a trial, and probably it would be a good thing if a trial was given to this?—It will condemn it. Make it a complete hour and it will fit in. 906. I have heard of this kind of thing whenever a change has come about 2—That is true, but you can see beforehand what a bother it is going to be; and every watch in the Kingdom would have to be altered. You cannot do that by electricity; it would have to be altered four weeks in succession. People would have to say: “Let us see, is this the week that I have to alter my watch; how much does it differ ?” It would
be shocking. It would be no good a man having
a good watch. 907. It would be a trouble to some I know to
have to change 2–It would.
908. It would spoil a good watch, would it not ?—A good watch would be of no use if you had to alter it eight times a year. A man who buys himself a watch which keeps time to a minute a year would have to shift it about eight times a year. It would condemn it—that is from a practical point of view—I am taking my watchmaker's point of view, but I am quite sure the majority of people would find it an intolerable nuisance.
909. It might be good for the watch trade 2– We do not want any help of that sort.
Sir Walter Nugent.
910. I take it from your evidence, therefore, that you think some change is desirable 2– Yes, I think it would be good. 911. And you think that the more desirable change would be to put forward the clocks by statute, permanently ?–Yes. 912. And if people desired to have any change made you think they should agitate for it 2–Yes. 913. Your own idea is that it is better not to put the clocks back?—Yes, that is decidedly so. 914. And you think that if people once had their present habits broken they would adapt themselves in winter to the daylight 2—I am quite sure they would. The only objection that seemed to have any effect was this gentleman's, who said, with regard to the Stock Exchange business, speaking of the American markets, that they would have to sacrifice the afternoon. I do not think America is likely to alter its time because we do.
915. If Mid-European time was adopted, where would Greenwich time apply at all ?–It would be Greenwich time still, only a difference of that one hour of the clock. 916. But Mid-European time is not Greenwich time 2—It is based on Greenwich time. 917. I know that, but the origin of time starts, as Sir David Gill said, from Greenwich time; what countries would be using it 2–Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Switzerland. 918. You are speaking of Mid-European time 2 —Yes. 919. I am speaking about Greenwich time 2– Greenwich time. Holland, Belgium and Spain. 920. And what else ?–And Great Britain. 921. We are going to give it up if we are going to adopt Mid-European time 2—I do not call that giving it up. 922. Is it so or not? If we reckon with Germany we are not reckoning with Holland 2–Yes, we are both reckoning from the same source. We only differ an hour. 923. You 19 May, 1908.]
"923. You would not call Mid-European time the same time as they use in Holland ?–No. 924. Then let us be quite clear. Your proposition is that Holland, Spain and Belgium should use Greenwich time, and that Great Britain should use Mid-European time 2–Yes. 925. I suppose the whole of the ocean at least would be free to use Greenwich time 2—The whole of the world is still free to use Greenwich time. 926. All the ocean; but there would be no land using Greenwich time except Holland, Spain and Belgium ?—They probably would adapt themselves to Mid-European time if that were made permanent. 927. Then there would be no land in the world using Greenwich time 2—Every person who took an observation of the sun would be using Greenwich time. 928. That would be using sun time 2–He would be using Greenwich time as his reference. 929. If you put it in that way, you seem to be quibbling with me?—I do not wish to quibble with you, Sir. 930. What I want to get at is, if Holland, Belgium and Spain were using Mid-European time, what part of the world would remain using
Mr. JAMES C. MoNTGOMERIE
939. I understand that you have come here to give evidence from the point of view of the convenience and opportunities that the scheme of this Bill would afford for playing golf to business men ?—Yes, that is so. 940. From what points of view do the provisions of this Bill commend themselves to your judgment ?—By increasing daylight; the business hours would close correspondingly sooner, and thereby the members—the golfers—of the golfing club would be able to come down in the afternoon earlier than they do now. 941. From the fact that the establishments would close an hour earlier ?–An hour or an hour and 20 minutes earlier. 942. What other advantages do you suggest ? —That is the sole advantage from the golfer's point of view—that he would get a longer time to play his game; and, of course, in other affairs of sport the same thing would apply, I take it. 943. Have you considered the methods proposed to be adopted by the Bill ?–No, I have not considered the Bill in any shape or form, except from that point of view; except, also, that if it is carried it will be a great boon to golfers. 944. You are not aware of any objection that you think might be raised to the Bill as it stands, as regards a piecemeal application of the change of hours?—I rather think it would be preferable, from the working point of view, to have a change of one hour. 945. Would you have a permanent change of one hour or a six months’ change 2–Well, I am not sufficiently scientific to give an opinion upon that point.
Greenwich time 7–Precisely the same as if Mr. Willett's proposal were adopted. 931. Now, will you answer my question ? What part of the world would be using Greenwich time 2—Well, I cannot remember places, Sir. I do not know whether Iceland is using it; probably not. 932. Would any?—No, I do not think any would. 933. Let me help your memory. Do not you know that the meridian of Greenwich goes right through the Western Azores, the west of the Antarctic 2–It does not go west of anywhere. 934. Does it not go west of the Azores?—I do not remember; it passes through Africa, and if it passes through Africa, it must pass out of Africa. 935. I think you are wrong?—It must go into Africa. 936. As a clockmaker you know which it is ? —It goes through the northern part of Africa, but where it passes out into the Atlantic I do not remember. 937. You do not know 2–No. 938. What would North Africa be doing about it —I do not know whether. they would pay any attention to it. (The Witness withdrew.)
called in ; and Examined.
946. Do I understand rightly that there is nothing from any point of view that you would wish to place before the Committee ?–No, it is simply from the golfers’ point of view.
947. Are you in business yourself?—I am the Secretary of the Mid-Surrey Golf Club. 948. You are not a commercial man 7—No, I am not a commercial man. 949. Of course, obviously, this would only be an advantage to golfers if the offices stuck to the present nominal time 2—Yes. 950. If anything happened that they came to the conclusion that their business had to be conducted by real time, and altered their nominal time, the advantage would then absolutely disappear ?—The advantage would then absolutely disappear. 951. So far as the golf clubs are concerned, surely it would be an advantage to them to have the same system in operation both summer and winter for the Saturday afternoon ?—Yes, for the Saturday. 952. The Saturday afternoon is just as valuable to the golfer in the winter as in the summer ?— No, not quite as valuable; I think not. 953. You know a great many people do not get away till one or two o'clock; what difference would it make to those people 2—They get an hour, or an hour and 10 minutes' more play.
(The Witness withdrew.)
The Right Hon. Lord AvKBURY (attending by permission of the House of Lords), Examined.
954. You have been for more than 50 years Secretary, Vice-Chairman, or Chairman of the London Bankers ?—I have. 955. You are now the Chairman of the London Bankers and President of the Central Association of Bankers ?—I am. 956. You have been President of the London Chamber of Commerce and of the Associated Chambers of Commerce 2—I have. 957. Have you considered the provisions of the Bill ?—I have. I have not gone into details; I have considered the Bill generally. 958. And what is your view with regard to its general purport 2—My view of it is that it would be a great convenience to merchants and bankers and what is of more importance to our clerks, and the clerks generally throughout the City. They would be able to get away at a time which would enable them to play a game of cricket or get some other healthy outdoor exercise, which I believe would be a very great boon to them. 959. Have you any view as to the methods suggested by the Bill ?—Well, I think in the first place that if it is to be done at all it must be done by legislation. No doubt bankers and merchants can make a custom, but it takes time to make a custom, and you could not make a custom so quickly as to fall in with the suggestions of this Bill. It would be impossible, for instance, to make a custom to alter the time of the clock eight times in the year, and therefore it is quite impossible for us to alter our hours unless it is done by legislation. Even if we were all to agrec as to the desirability of altering the hours, it would not give legal authority, and I feel sure it would be impossible to do it in that way. In my judgment, therefore, if anything is done at all it must be by legislation. 960. Now we have had several witnesses before uS w: approve of the principle of the Bill, but
who are hopelessly at variance as to the manner in which the proposed change can be carried out— that is to say, some witnesses have been in favour of the piecemeal alteration of the clocks as suggested by the Bill; others have recommended the adoption of what is known as “Mid-European time,” which is an hour faster than the Greenwich time, and that, every six months of the year; and others have gone the “Whole Hog”—that is for a permanent alteration and the adoption of Mid-European time. Can you throw any light upon either of these three suggestions ?—Well, I really have not considered the question of the MidEuropean time. Personally, I think that the changes in the Bill are rather numerous, and if it would be possible to reduce the number and change half an hour or even an hour, I am disposed to think it would be more simple and more convenient; but that seems to me to be a question on which the railway companies and the Post Office could speak with much more authority. If the change is to be made at all, I think the Committee will agree that it would be necessary that the railway companies and the Post Office should fall in with the arrangement, because it would be impossible for merchants or for bankers to work their business unless they got their letters and were able to send their letters off at the same corresponding hours as at present. It does not very much matter, I think, to men in business whether there are two or four or whether there is only one change in the year, but it may make, and probably would make, a great deal of difference to the railway companies and the Post Office. Personally, therefore, I should be disposed to think that they can but advise the
Committee in the matter. 961. Precisely. I point out to you that the reason given by Mr. Willett, the author of the scheme for this gradual alteration of the time, is, that